Subject: Re: [boost] [quickbook] diagnosing a missing [endsect]?
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-22 11:49:34
Daniel James wrote:
> Everything looks like a nail? If i wanted to test against master, I would
> download a snapshot. But even if I did that, the travis tests wouldn't
> have caught this, as I only run them in C++03 mode. For a few reasons, I
> don't think Travis is an appropriate place for testing the dependencies of
> quickbook. Would be better to add it to the main testing setup, but I've
> never been motivated enough to do that. My main concern is that the
> automated builds work, and I'm not going to put a lot of effort into
> guaranteeing constant support for other configurations.
Well currently, "b2 doc" would fail for everyone using Visual Studio
2013/2015/2017 or g++ 6. It would have failed for me had I not been using
the ancient 8.0 as a default.
In general, and this is not directed at you personally, the point of testing
develop against boostorg:develop is to catch such breaking changes as the
current string_ref one early, before they reach the release. Downstream
dependencies effectively serve as an integration test for lower-level
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk